1. Field of the Invention
The invention relates to a crash-proof child safety seat that can be used on the lap of an adult on an airplane or in an automobile.
2. Description of Related Art
The problem of carrying infants and small children on airplanes has only recently begun to receive the attention it deserves. An excellent discussion of the background of the problem and the state of the art can be found in a paper entitled "The Status of Infant/Child Restraint Protection in Aircraft Crash Impacts" by Richard G. Snyder, Ph.D., presented as part of the Proceedings of the International Aircraft Occupant Safety Conference and Workshop, Flight Safety Foundation, Arlington, Va., Oct. 31-Nov. 3, 1988, Final Report DOT/FAA/OV-89-2 August 1989. The dilemma is that airlines will frequently require that a small child sit on a parent's lap or that the parent purchase a second seat. The purchase of a second seat for an infant or small child is an expensive proposition for most families. Alternatively, having an unrestrained infant sit on a parent's lap is also undesirable for at least two reasons. First of all, the child, often referred to as a "lap child", is unrestrained, and, therefore, in the event of a crash the child might leave the parent's lap and strike an object in the cabin. Second, and more importantly, the weight of an adult in the event of a crash or sudden stop would be brought to bear directly on top of the child thereby crushing the child and producing severe trauma. This problem has been the subject of several recent articles including one entitled "Child Safety Seats: Debate on Recalls" including a sub-article entitled "Taking Baby on a Plane" which appeared in the Saturday, Feb. 24, 1990 edition of The New York Times, page 16Y. Moreover, two editorials and additional supporting stories appeared in the Mar. 1, 1990 edition of U.S.A. Today, page 10A. The first editorial was entitled "Don't Require Seats for our Littlest Fliers" and the second is entitled "Require Seats for our Littlest Fliers". Both sets of articles point up the difficulty of carrying lap children on commercial airliners versus the economic factor of purchasing an extra seat and using that with a standard automotive seat.
If the commercial airlines require adults to purchase extra tickets for their infant children, then many of those infants will end up travelling by automobile due to the extra cost. That in turn will mean a larger number of infant fatalities due to the relatively greater danger of travelling by automobile as compared to travelling by commercial aircraft. An editorial entitled "Don't Require Seats for Tots Who Fly" which appeared in the May 24, 1990 edition of USA Today, page 12A, summarized the problem as follows: ". . . it could force them (parents) to take the trip by car. That could be more dangerous."
There is a clear need for a practical lap usable safety seat. This need is described in a number of recent newspaper stories including: an article entitled "Airline Infant Safety Seats Required" that appeared on page 17 of the Feb. 5, 1990 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology; an article entitled "NTSB Recommends FAA Require Child Safety Seats on Aircraft" which appeared on page 117 of the May 28, 1990 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology; and, an article entitled "Airplane Safety Seats are Urged for Children" that appeared on page A8 of the May 23, 1990 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The need for airline safety seats was nicely summarized in an article entitled "Airlines Now Push Baby Safety Seats" which appeared on pages B1 and B8 of the Feb. 22, 1990 edition of the Wall Street Journal. That article stated in its conclusion as follows: "Any rule requiring safety seats could easily take a year or so to go into effect. In the meantime, the airlines want the FAA to redouble research efforts into developing some sort of contraption that would restrain babies without requiring an extra plane seat. If such an apparatus were invented, they say, safety seats--and extra tickets --wouldn't be needed." In short, there is a clear need to provide a crash resistant carrier that will permit an adult to keep a child on his or her lap. From the economic point of view, it would save parents money and would mean that the airlines would not lose revenue from those parents who couldn't afford the extra ticket. From the safety point of view, it is safer to travel by commercial airliner than it is to travel by car and, therefore, it is desirable to encouraged parents to take their children on airplanes. Lastly, there is a clear need for an appropriate lap child safety seat as set forth in the foregoing articles describing the current positions of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
There does not appear to be a large body of prior art related to the problem of the lap child on an airline. U.S. Pat. No. 4,618,186 entitled CHILD SAFETY RESTRAINT does, however, describe a child restraint in the form of a strap that can be used by a parent to hold a child on the lap in an airplane environment. If the adult is thrown forward, however, he or she is likely to crush the child. Moreover the restraint does not provide protection from objects that might become airborne during an accident.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,900,086 entitled INTEGRAL FOLDING CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM describes a safety seat that can be used both on a land vehicle or in an aircraft. Unfortunately the structure of that child restraint system is not such as would lend itself to use on the lap of an adult.
The prior art does disclose some bracket-like elements that can rotate with respect to a child's seat. Note, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,456,302 in which a barrier is rotatable from a rear position to a front position. Belgian Patent No. 61,939 discloses a stroller/safety seat in which the rear stroller frame mechanism can be rotated around the front to form a carrying handle. U.S. Pat. No. 3,645,548 describes a rear frame member which can be rotated from behind to in front. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 3,400,976 discloses another child safety seat in which a member is rotatable from a rear position to a front position. In summary, the concept of a rotatable bracket-like element in the context of a child seat is known in some environment. However, one that provides safety protection from an adult who might crush a lap child during an airplane accident or reconverts the unit for automotive seat use, does not appear to be taught or suggested.
Convertible strollers and backpacks are known in certain limited areas. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,659,865 discloses a SAFETY SEAT FOR CHILDREN which is carriable in a variety of different modes. In one mode, the safety seat can be carried with an arm sling by an adult. The carrier can also be part of a back pack that is attached to the adult or, alternatively, the seat can be used as part of a stroller. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 4,113,306 entitled CONVERTIBLE CHILD RESTRAINT discloses a child carrier which is convertible into a stroller. U.S. Pat. No. 4,743,063 discloses another CONVERTIBLE MULTI-FUNCTION CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM in which the seat can be positioned facing forwardly or rearwardly or might be attached to a highchair/stroller apparatus. However, insofar as understood, none of the prior art appears to describe or suggest a convertible hand cart/backpack which would be appropriate and useful for a child safety seat of the sort that would protect a lap child.
Flotation devices are known in aircraft. For example, the cushions in many airplanes float and it is common practice to require inflatable life preservers on international flights that pass over water. If an infant is travelling in the seat next to his or her parent, it can be difficult to put a life preserver on the child. First the parent has to put on his or her own life preserver. Then the infant must be removed from its seat and a separate life preserver placed on the child. This procedure could take more time than an emergency situation permits. It would, therefore, be useful to have a lap child safety seat in which the flotation is permanently attached and does not have to be separately worn and specially manipulated. Some flotation devices are directed toward child safety. Note for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,687,452 entitled GAS-INFLATABLE, FLOATING, PORTABLE SEAT. There does not appear, however, to be any significant body of prior art related to the emergency flotation of a child safety seat such as employed to protect a lap child and wherein both the seat and the flotation meet FAA/TSO requirements.
With regard to the frames in general, note U.S. Pat. No. 4,790,593.
The following patents are cited as being of general interest only: 4,852,894; 4,231,613; 4,204,695 and French Patent No. 2602-409-A.
While certain elements of the present invention may be known in different contexts, there does not appear to be any suggestion of a crash worthy lap child safety seat that would prevent a child from being crushed by an adult in the event of an airplane accident. Moreover, there do not appear to be any specific suggestions or teachings of flotation devices or convertible hand carts/backpacks that would appropriate for use with a lap child safety seat. It was in the context of the foregoing prior art that the present invention arose.